750 Main St Suite 309 Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 361-7999


US Supreme Court Holds Class-Wide Arbitration Not Permitted Where Arbitration Agreement Language is Ambiguous With Respect to Class Claims

Posted by Cindy M. Cieslak | May 08, 2019 | 0 Comments

On April 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, a 5-4 decision, that because arbitration is a matter of consent, where an arbitration agreement's provisions regarding class claims were ambiguous and not express, the arbitration agreement did not allow for class proce...

CT Appellate Court Holds Additional Leave of Absence is Not a Reasonable Accommodation When Weighed Against Attendance As An Essential Job Function

Posted by Cindy M. Cieslak | Apr 23, 2019 | 0 Comments

In Barbabosa v. Bd. of Educ. of Manchester, AC 41304 (Apr. 23, 2019), the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to award summary judgment to the Manchester Board of Education in a disability discrimination and failure to accommodate case. The Appellate Court upheld th...

Rose Kallor Partner Cindy Cieslak to Participate in Diversity & Inclusion Panel at Advanced Labor & Employment Law Symposium

Posted by Cindy M. Cieslak | Feb 26, 2019 | 0 Comments

On March 14, 2019, Attorney Cindy Cieslak will participate in a panel discussion, along with Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Deputy Director Cheryl Sharp, regarding “Diversity in the Workplace: Is Meeting the Legal Requirements Enough?” The panelists expect to cover important topics,...

Justice Thomas Suggests U.S. Supreme Court Should Reconsider "Actual Malice" Standard for Defamation Claims by Public Figures

Posted by Cindy M. Cieslak | Feb 26, 2019 | 0 Comments

On February 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Kathrine McKee's petition for a writ of certiorari in McKee v. Cosby.  In connection with that denial, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)...

Connecticut Pay Equity Law Effective January 1

Posted by Robin B. Kallor | Jan 03, 2019 | 0 Comments

Effective January 1, 2019, Connecticut law provides job applicants the following new protections: (1) employers may not ask prospective employees about past wages and compensation histories at any point during the hiring process, although prospective employees may choose to volunteer such informa...

Rose Kallor, LLP Awarded 2019 "Best Law Firms" Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Rankings in Hartford in U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

Posted by Robin B. Kallor | Nov 01, 2018 | 0 Comments

Rose Kallor, LLP is pleased to announce that it has received Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Rankings in the 2019 Edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers list of “Best Law Firms.” Firms included in the 2019 Edition of “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ...

Connecticut Superior Court Holds That Filing Personal Injury Lawsuit Does Not Constitute Speech on a Matter of Public Concern

Posted by Cindy M. Cieslak | Oct 18, 2018 | 0 Comments

On February 28, 2018, the Connecticut Superior Court entered judgment for the employer on plaintiff's claims of termination in violation of public policy and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in Richard v. Para-Pharm.  Then, on July 13, 2018, the Connecticut Superior C...

According to the Sixth Circuit, Employee Who Contends She Signed Release Agreement Under Duress Does Not Have To Return Severance Before Suing Under Federal Civil Rights Statutes

Posted by Robin B. Kallor | Aug 27, 2018 | 0 Comments

In 1998, the Supreme Court, in Oubre v. Energy Operations, opined that when a release agreement did not contain language necessary under the Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act in order to waive a federal age discrimination claim, the doctrine of “tender back” and “ratification” does not apply....

Connecticut Updates Anti-Pregnancy Discrimination Law

Posted by Cindy M. Cieslak | Jan 29, 2018 | 0 Comments

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Young v. UPS, it is well-known that pregnancy discrimination is prohibited by federal anti-discrimination laws because it constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. Additionally, under federal law, employers must make accommodations for pregnant...

  • 4 of 5